In today's world of non stop action films, heavily stylized CGI masterpieces creating unimaginable worlds and an endless parade of beautiful stars, films from Hollywood's Golden Age often do not hold up with contemporary audiences. The narratives are comparatively slow and and often perceived as dull while the technical work is seemingly so far behind that which dazzles us today that the films look prehistoric. Yet many of these films are considered classic for good reason; the narratives hold up over time, the stars of such features have become embedded within our collective consciences and these films tend to foreshadow our contemporary society. The Asphalt Jungle (John Huston, MGM,1950) is no exception to any of this. The narrative is drudgingly slow at times, the claustrophobic use of light and shadow serves to trap the viewer and the complete void of star power emphasizes just how important the star system is to films. Take the film in the context of a viewer from 1950 and this film becomes a revelation!
By 1950 film styles had already started undergoing major changes and The Asphalt Jungle reflects many of these changes. Throughout the film there is extensive use of location shooting, using the city streets and old dilapidated buildings of our urban world as ready made sets, emphasizing urban decay along with our own eroding morality. This lends the film an incredible realism as compared to films released prior to 1950. Also noticeable is the way in which the camera is employed. Tilted angles, extreme high and low shots, imperceptible lighting all add to the dreariness portrayed in a decaying urban society. The cinematography for the film is incredible. The film is constantly bathed in darkness, adding a shadowy layer to the film, giving the city a life of its own. At times there is no light whatsoever, and it isn't until the final scene of the film that we see a screen saturated with light. This endless darkness further ensconces the audience within the city and helps to reinforce the themes the script focuses on.
The array of themes and issues dealt with in the script are endless, themes facing urban society in the late 1940's as well as contemporary society. Human fallibility, a rising and unfettered criminal faction, greed and corruption, a burgeoning urban decay coupled with a declining morality are all some of the issues or themes touched on by the film. It's a credit to the adaptation by John Huston and Ben Maddow that they were able to pack so much into their script.
With a professional ensemble cast that serves the film quite well (the use of no stars emphasizes the anonymity of life in the city) it is a minor role which stands out within this film. Marilyn Monroe gets her first taste of the silver screen in a minor role but every second she is on the screen is electric. All she was to become as an actress and pop culture icon is on display in this film. The sultry vixen, the coquettish young girl pouting her way into what she wants, the bombshell to be just waiting to emerge from her cocoon. Two things stand out to me particularly in regards to Marilyn here (please note that I actually studied Marilyn for a semester while at USC so I have more knowledge than most regarding this icon). Her very first scene involves her sitting in her "uncle's" lap (Alonzo Emmerich played by Louis Calhern) as he pulls her in for a kiss. Marilyn owed her career to a long string of such affairs and it is ironic that her first appearance on screen is her showing what got her there in the first place. The second thing that got my attention is her body. In this film she completely has the ideal 1940's body for a woman. Her body changed drastically over the next decade as she became the feminine ideal of the 1950's and it is striking just how much change that body underwent. It's almost as if she was two completely different woman.
I know this isn't everyone's cup of tea but the film is worth just to see Marilyn at such a young age, before fame wrecked her. Tell me, isn't she stunningly beautiful in the film? Google still images and write a comment. Thanks for reading and sharing!
Friday, September 30, 2011
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
OUR IDIOT BROTHER (Jesse Peretz, 2011)
Maybe it is just me and I misread the trailers and promotion for OUR IDIOT BROTHER (Jesse Peretz, 2011) but this film has been completely marketed wrong, and I truly believe that it was even named incorrectly. And this is a shame, because I feel most audiences are going into this film thinking it's gonna be a broad comedy along the lines of the Apatow films and when it isn't they come away mostly disappointed. But this film is actually pretty good if you take away all pre-conceived notions about what you are walking into see.
The film is endearing and heartfelt, coming from a genuine place. The character of Ned (Paul Rudd) is truly one of the nice guys. Not so much an idiot, more naive than anything else. Ned is a believer of a world of inherent good living in a cynical world that has long ago pushed such thoughts aside. And Ned's qualities make him the antithesis to everyone, especially those in his family. And thats what the film ultimately is, a family film. Albeit, one of a strange hipster family from New York.
The overarching message for the narrative lies in family, and how a family struggles together and overcomes in the end by staying together. There are some funny moments but as I mentioned earlier, don't be fooled into thinking this is the direction of focus of the film. Finally (spoiler alert), why couldn't they name the film, simply, WILLIE NELSON?
The film is endearing and heartfelt, coming from a genuine place. The character of Ned (Paul Rudd) is truly one of the nice guys. Not so much an idiot, more naive than anything else. Ned is a believer of a world of inherent good living in a cynical world that has long ago pushed such thoughts aside. And Ned's qualities make him the antithesis to everyone, especially those in his family. And thats what the film ultimately is, a family film. Albeit, one of a strange hipster family from New York.
The overarching message for the narrative lies in family, and how a family struggles together and overcomes in the end by staying together. There are some funny moments but as I mentioned earlier, don't be fooled into thinking this is the direction of focus of the film. Finally (spoiler alert), why couldn't they name the film, simply, WILLIE NELSON?
TOUCH OF EVIL (Orson Welles, 1958)
Much like Detective Hank Quinlan (Orson Welles), Welles himself can be seen as a man trying to do the greater good but due to character flaws failing to accomplish what he sets out to do. Welles is a master of the cinematic form and a film like TOUCH OF EVIL (Welles, 1958) captures all of his brilliance and ambition. But like Quinlan, Welles falls short in the pantheon of great filmmakers because he refused to do it any other way then his way, to his detriment.
From the very opening shot of the film, the three and one half minutes of an uninterrupted tracking shot you know you are about to see some visually special. Remember, this film came out in 1958, and he opened with a three and one half minute shot. No cuts, just straight filming. An incredible achievement, one later copied by many, most notably Scorsese and PTA. The cinematography for the film is excellent. Black and white, allowing for a broader array of contrasts, the dichotomy between light and dark portrays the struggle between good and evil. This speaks for the film but particularly for Quinlan, as this detective slides along a murky line between doing his job the right way or fabricating evidence to attain arrest. For the film as a whole, the contrast serves to guide the viewer and remind us that bad things are happening in a good world.
Also serving to remind the audience of the dichotomy of this world is the continual camera placement by Welles in an oft centered way. The camera is repeatedly oft kilter, emphasizing that something within the films narrative and world is wrong. The camera is often placed at a low angle, particularly when shooting Quinlan and his fellow officers. This serves to give Quinlan a God-like appearance, as we are always gazing up at Quinlan and his officers. This God-like appearance of the police speaks to a larger, more contemporary issue today's audiences deal with.
That issue, among others in the film is one of police culpability and responsibility. We place an inordinate amount of pressure on our police to keep us safe yet restrict their abilities to accomplish their job. The film touches on this very topic. Quinlan knows who has placed the bomb in the car for the original crime, yet he doesn't have the evidence. So he manufactures it, crossing a line. That and his reliance on brutal tactics place Quinlan squarely in line with modern police. The film also touches on the beginnings of contemporary issues such as drugs and gangs and the symbiotic relationship between the two. I think it would be great to be able to go back to the writing of this film and see juts how much they wanted to comment on these issues in a broader sense.
To go back and meet the classical stars of this work would be nothing short of amazing. Never lauded as "great" actors, both Charlton Heston and Janet Leigh both are stars. Acting has become so good that often people confuse the fact that those in the movies are stars and people pay to see stars. Such is the case for Heston and Leigh. And there is no bigger star in this film than Marlene Dietrich. Still stunningly beautiful and seductive at filming (she was 57), Dietrich embodies everything that film stars used to be. Welles too is a master, having that distinct ability to portray faults of a character and to be willing to have his audience loathe his character. Truly a master at work.
TOUCH OF EVIL is a classic, pure technical accomplishment, performance oriented and socially driven. Worth viewing again and again.
From the very opening shot of the film, the three and one half minutes of an uninterrupted tracking shot you know you are about to see some visually special. Remember, this film came out in 1958, and he opened with a three and one half minute shot. No cuts, just straight filming. An incredible achievement, one later copied by many, most notably Scorsese and PTA. The cinematography for the film is excellent. Black and white, allowing for a broader array of contrasts, the dichotomy between light and dark portrays the struggle between good and evil. This speaks for the film but particularly for Quinlan, as this detective slides along a murky line between doing his job the right way or fabricating evidence to attain arrest. For the film as a whole, the contrast serves to guide the viewer and remind us that bad things are happening in a good world.
Also serving to remind the audience of the dichotomy of this world is the continual camera placement by Welles in an oft centered way. The camera is repeatedly oft kilter, emphasizing that something within the films narrative and world is wrong. The camera is often placed at a low angle, particularly when shooting Quinlan and his fellow officers. This serves to give Quinlan a God-like appearance, as we are always gazing up at Quinlan and his officers. This God-like appearance of the police speaks to a larger, more contemporary issue today's audiences deal with.
That issue, among others in the film is one of police culpability and responsibility. We place an inordinate amount of pressure on our police to keep us safe yet restrict their abilities to accomplish their job. The film touches on this very topic. Quinlan knows who has placed the bomb in the car for the original crime, yet he doesn't have the evidence. So he manufactures it, crossing a line. That and his reliance on brutal tactics place Quinlan squarely in line with modern police. The film also touches on the beginnings of contemporary issues such as drugs and gangs and the symbiotic relationship between the two. I think it would be great to be able to go back to the writing of this film and see juts how much they wanted to comment on these issues in a broader sense.
To go back and meet the classical stars of this work would be nothing short of amazing. Never lauded as "great" actors, both Charlton Heston and Janet Leigh both are stars. Acting has become so good that often people confuse the fact that those in the movies are stars and people pay to see stars. Such is the case for Heston and Leigh. And there is no bigger star in this film than Marlene Dietrich. Still stunningly beautiful and seductive at filming (she was 57), Dietrich embodies everything that film stars used to be. Welles too is a master, having that distinct ability to portray faults of a character and to be willing to have his audience loathe his character. Truly a master at work.
TOUCH OF EVIL is a classic, pure technical accomplishment, performance oriented and socially driven. Worth viewing again and again.
Pleasantville (Gary Ross, 1998)
I never particularly cared to see Pleasantville (Gary Ross, 1998) but on the recommendation of some friends went ahead and threw it on my Netflix queue awhile back and forgot about it. With a Netflix queue as long as mine, I'll put things on it and by the time I get the film I wonder what I had originally been thinking. As it was with Pleaseantville, I can't remember who recommended it to me or why I finally acquiesced and place it on my queue. Needless to say, I came away particularly impressed.
The most impressive thing to me is the overall job accomplished by Gary Ross. Writing, producing and directing a film can be akin to running a marathon backwards while stabbing yourself in the leg with an icepick. It's that much fun and so easy to get finished. Ross does it though, and rather well. The film is fun and poignant, it speaks to larger issues and it has some amazing production value to it.
The most striking aspect of these production values is of course the CGI and the effects editing. The mixing of two worlds had to be insanely difficult but what was accomplished is very well done. The art direction and overall production design to the film is remarkable as the audience is place into that ever so perfect world of America in the 1950's. Like that decade though, not all is right in Pleasantville and the films narrative captures this perfectly.
The underlying subtext within the film is a great mirror to the issues that underlies 1950's America. Male identity crisis lingering from the return of men from World War II, a rise in social and psychological awareness, a smoldering guilt over inherent racism and it's effect on dividing our nation, and a ethical and moral compass which was not only spinning out of control but was teetering on the precipice of a new age. Every one of these issues is dealt with magnificently in the film.
The men of Pleasantville want things to remain as they are. When George Parker (William H Macy) stumbles around his home asking "where's my dinner?", can this clinging to the old ways be more visible? The placing of placards reading "No Coloreds" brings a direct link to the era, albeit in a cleverly thought out way. And what of the moral precipice? Can Mary Sue (Reese Witherspoon) bringing the sexual revolution to Pleasantville be considered the spark that started the sexual revolution? The film is set in 1958. Within five years the birth control pill is introduced and the underlying sexual tension that existed in the 1950's was released. Is it all Reese's doing? Maybe.
Pleasantville is one of those rare films that works on all levels and I kick myself for never having seen it before. Do yourself a favor and go watch it!
The most impressive thing to me is the overall job accomplished by Gary Ross. Writing, producing and directing a film can be akin to running a marathon backwards while stabbing yourself in the leg with an icepick. It's that much fun and so easy to get finished. Ross does it though, and rather well. The film is fun and poignant, it speaks to larger issues and it has some amazing production value to it.
The most striking aspect of these production values is of course the CGI and the effects editing. The mixing of two worlds had to be insanely difficult but what was accomplished is very well done. The art direction and overall production design to the film is remarkable as the audience is place into that ever so perfect world of America in the 1950's. Like that decade though, not all is right in Pleasantville and the films narrative captures this perfectly.
The underlying subtext within the film is a great mirror to the issues that underlies 1950's America. Male identity crisis lingering from the return of men from World War II, a rise in social and psychological awareness, a smoldering guilt over inherent racism and it's effect on dividing our nation, and a ethical and moral compass which was not only spinning out of control but was teetering on the precipice of a new age. Every one of these issues is dealt with magnificently in the film.
The men of Pleasantville want things to remain as they are. When George Parker (William H Macy) stumbles around his home asking "where's my dinner?", can this clinging to the old ways be more visible? The placing of placards reading "No Coloreds" brings a direct link to the era, albeit in a cleverly thought out way. And what of the moral precipice? Can Mary Sue (Reese Witherspoon) bringing the sexual revolution to Pleasantville be considered the spark that started the sexual revolution? The film is set in 1958. Within five years the birth control pill is introduced and the underlying sexual tension that existed in the 1950's was released. Is it all Reese's doing? Maybe.
Pleasantville is one of those rare films that works on all levels and I kick myself for never having seen it before. Do yourself a favor and go watch it!
Machete (Robert Rodriguez, 2010)
A film like Machete (Robert Rodriguez, 2010) can go one of three ways with an audience. It can be viewed by closed minded individuals an seen as not artistically valuable with a bad narrative and cheap production values. It can be seen by some as a schlockfest type of film, full of blood and guts, tits and ass. But then there are viewers like myself, who see Rodriguez as nothing short of a genius. Someone who can take a very basic narrative and make a film that pays homage to the exploitation films Rodriguez grew up with, makes societal commentary on one of our most controversial topics today and above all, entertains.
From the first scene of the film, the audience is transported back to the exploitation films of the seventies. As I watched this unfold, I almost felt as if I was actually watching something from this era. Rodriguez did a masterful job of accomplishing the look he set out to attain. The cinematography feels older, the editing of the film cuts like a film of that era. Even the narrative takes you back, basic and with plot holes wide enough to drive a car through. Detractors will hate this but they'd be missing the point, Rodriguez wanted it all this way.
Speaking of Rodriguez, not Robert but Michelle, I was utterly captivated by her. In a time when we are inundated by a constant barrage of images woman and sex, many times it is easy to not really see a person. I have seen Rodriguez in many films but it was this film that made me stop and realize just how amazing she looks. Maybe she got in really great shape for the film, maybe the competition of Jessica Alba brought it out of her but she looked amazing.
Also amazing for me was the fact that Danny Trejo was given a starring role, one that he deserves wholeheartedly. Long a card carrying member from the "that guy" club, Trejo hits the title role of Machete perfectly. He is the right combination of badass and not caring, willing to do what it takes to get the job done. Perfect for the role.
Amidst all the blood, gore, women and guns there just so happens to be a great message. And as you watch, you can't help but be impressed that Robert Rodriguez sublimely stuck it in his film. The United States, throughout it's history has had a long standing issue with immigration. And regardless of where you stand on the issue, Rodriguez brings out some rather salient points. Ultimately the absurdity of the situation and the lengths people will go to in dealing with this issue are what he presents best and most effectively.
Go see Machete to be entertained, dazzled and to maybe even come away with a new sense of some issues we deal with in society today. Or just go see it for Michelle Rodriguez!
From the first scene of the film, the audience is transported back to the exploitation films of the seventies. As I watched this unfold, I almost felt as if I was actually watching something from this era. Rodriguez did a masterful job of accomplishing the look he set out to attain. The cinematography feels older, the editing of the film cuts like a film of that era. Even the narrative takes you back, basic and with plot holes wide enough to drive a car through. Detractors will hate this but they'd be missing the point, Rodriguez wanted it all this way.
Speaking of Rodriguez, not Robert but Michelle, I was utterly captivated by her. In a time when we are inundated by a constant barrage of images woman and sex, many times it is easy to not really see a person. I have seen Rodriguez in many films but it was this film that made me stop and realize just how amazing she looks. Maybe she got in really great shape for the film, maybe the competition of Jessica Alba brought it out of her but she looked amazing.
Also amazing for me was the fact that Danny Trejo was given a starring role, one that he deserves wholeheartedly. Long a card carrying member from the "that guy" club, Trejo hits the title role of Machete perfectly. He is the right combination of badass and not caring, willing to do what it takes to get the job done. Perfect for the role.
Amidst all the blood, gore, women and guns there just so happens to be a great message. And as you watch, you can't help but be impressed that Robert Rodriguez sublimely stuck it in his film. The United States, throughout it's history has had a long standing issue with immigration. And regardless of where you stand on the issue, Rodriguez brings out some rather salient points. Ultimately the absurdity of the situation and the lengths people will go to in dealing with this issue are what he presents best and most effectively.
Go see Machete to be entertained, dazzled and to maybe even come away with a new sense of some issues we deal with in society today. Or just go see it for Michelle Rodriguez!
The Debt (John Madden, 2011)
In a world in which appearances are everything and where style long ago passed substance as the currency of choice, The Debt (John Madden, 2011) is a tremendous reflection of that world. The narrative is intriguing, gripping and filled with tension but instead of being a straight spy caper it delves deeply into questions of morality and ethics. It has a great overall direction and some of it's technical qualities are very well done. Finally, the acting for the film is tremendous with some of the very best working their craft in the film. It is the powerful questions which the films narrative sublimely raises that make this a great film for me.
Helping to add to the films power is a really nicely done job of directing by John Madden. Having never heard much about Madden I was greatly surprised to read that he directed the Oscar winning Shakespeare in Love (Madden, 1998). In The Debt, Madden deftly tells two stories set forty years apart and through some nice editing creates no confusion and crosses his narratives seamlessly. In a film such as this it would be rather easy to get lost between the two narratives but Madden makes it easy for his audience.
The production design for the film assisted Madden in his quest to keep things seamless. Every aspect of PD was done rather well, starting with some great art direction, which went back and captured a perfect vision of Eastern Bloc East Germany during the 1960's. Gray, dark, dreary and dismal set the tone for the film and heightened the tension. How can one not feel trapped amidst all that gray of the East German world? The costumes were right, the set design and construction perfect. The film placed you in Berlin in 1966, truly.
Also fitting right in Berlin in this era were some great performances by several actors. The younger crew of Jessica Chastain, Sam Worthington and Martin Csokas were outstanding. Nothing but great things can ever be said about their older counterparts, Helen Mirren, Ciaran Hinds and Tom Wilkinson. Chastain and Mirren really carry both narratives, and Chastain is nothing short of amazing. She plays the role of Rachel with vulnerability and strength, not an easy combination to pull off. The other actor who greatly impressed me was Sam Worthington. The only thing that kind of threw me was the fact that a young Stefan (Csokas) looked remarkably like the older David (Hinds).
One final note regarding the cast must be made. The performance of Jesper Christensen as Dieter Vogel was remarkable. I often wonder how an actor can play such a reprehensible character but Christensen does it effortlessly. And while we detest all that Vogel represents, it is a testimony to the portrayal by Christensen that he can make us feel sympathy for the character as he is held captive.
Finally I want to come back to the narrative. It is intriguing, raising questions of morality and ethics. It is gripping throughout, as it's characters go on a journey and take you with them. Through the earlier portion of the narrative the tension to get the films protagonists through their mission is very real. The audience knows they will survive, but how and at what cost? As I mentioned earlier, this is owed to a great job by Madden. But the underlying questions this film raises are what makes it remarkable to me. How far does one go to pursue criminals, particularly when revenge is a motivating factor? When you have that criminal caught and are holding him captive, at what point is the line blurred and crossed between right and wrong. In a contemporary society where the use of torture is a controversial topic, isn't this line something that should be clearly delineated? And the films biggest line, that line between true reality and the reality which we have created. Where do those two worlds mix and intermingle?
The Debt is a very powerful film, one that works on all aspects. It is definitely one of the best films I have seen so far in 2011.
Helping to add to the films power is a really nicely done job of directing by John Madden. Having never heard much about Madden I was greatly surprised to read that he directed the Oscar winning Shakespeare in Love (Madden, 1998). In The Debt, Madden deftly tells two stories set forty years apart and through some nice editing creates no confusion and crosses his narratives seamlessly. In a film such as this it would be rather easy to get lost between the two narratives but Madden makes it easy for his audience.
The production design for the film assisted Madden in his quest to keep things seamless. Every aspect of PD was done rather well, starting with some great art direction, which went back and captured a perfect vision of Eastern Bloc East Germany during the 1960's. Gray, dark, dreary and dismal set the tone for the film and heightened the tension. How can one not feel trapped amidst all that gray of the East German world? The costumes were right, the set design and construction perfect. The film placed you in Berlin in 1966, truly.
Also fitting right in Berlin in this era were some great performances by several actors. The younger crew of Jessica Chastain, Sam Worthington and Martin Csokas were outstanding. Nothing but great things can ever be said about their older counterparts, Helen Mirren, Ciaran Hinds and Tom Wilkinson. Chastain and Mirren really carry both narratives, and Chastain is nothing short of amazing. She plays the role of Rachel with vulnerability and strength, not an easy combination to pull off. The other actor who greatly impressed me was Sam Worthington. The only thing that kind of threw me was the fact that a young Stefan (Csokas) looked remarkably like the older David (Hinds).
One final note regarding the cast must be made. The performance of Jesper Christensen as Dieter Vogel was remarkable. I often wonder how an actor can play such a reprehensible character but Christensen does it effortlessly. And while we detest all that Vogel represents, it is a testimony to the portrayal by Christensen that he can make us feel sympathy for the character as he is held captive.
Finally I want to come back to the narrative. It is intriguing, raising questions of morality and ethics. It is gripping throughout, as it's characters go on a journey and take you with them. Through the earlier portion of the narrative the tension to get the films protagonists through their mission is very real. The audience knows they will survive, but how and at what cost? As I mentioned earlier, this is owed to a great job by Madden. But the underlying questions this film raises are what makes it remarkable to me. How far does one go to pursue criminals, particularly when revenge is a motivating factor? When you have that criminal caught and are holding him captive, at what point is the line blurred and crossed between right and wrong. In a contemporary society where the use of torture is a controversial topic, isn't this line something that should be clearly delineated? And the films biggest line, that line between true reality and the reality which we have created. Where do those two worlds mix and intermingle?
The Debt is a very powerful film, one that works on all aspects. It is definitely one of the best films I have seen so far in 2011.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Wild Things (John McNaughton, 1998)
Going back and watching a film like Wild Things (John McNaughton, 1998) tells me just how much my viewing of films has matured. I remember being excited to see the film, particularly because of the teasers that had been released. It looked like a cool film and it had Neve Campbell (who was a rising star at the time) and Denise Richards (who was incredibly hot and was also rising in stature). Kevin Bacon and Matt Dillon were in it, two great popcorn actors and so the film looked pretty good. I don't remember my initial reactions other than remembering every great moment Richards was in, Campbell and Richards with Dillon and then alone in the pool and finally that the film had about four endings too many.
So how has that changed? Well, re-watching the film for the first time in many years makes me realize that it, like so many other films I fondly remember are great popcorn films, but to think that they have any redeeming cinematic worth is false. The good things in this film are as I remember them. Some great sex scenes and a validation of the gaze aesthetic I had to learn about at USC. In fact, as I watched Richards exit the pool and realized the camera lingers on her body for about thirty seconds that was my first thought. Dillon and Bacon are pretty good in their respective roles, Dillon as the smarmy Sam Lombardo and Bacon as the violent cop Ray Duquette. It is also interesting to see Campbell completely play against her type. But just as I remembered, the film has way too many twists and turns at the end. I feel like it wanted to be Hitchcockian in form and content, but just wasn't up to those demanding standards, but then again, what film can? Still, a great popcorn film, if just for Richards.
So how has that changed? Well, re-watching the film for the first time in many years makes me realize that it, like so many other films I fondly remember are great popcorn films, but to think that they have any redeeming cinematic worth is false. The good things in this film are as I remember them. Some great sex scenes and a validation of the gaze aesthetic I had to learn about at USC. In fact, as I watched Richards exit the pool and realized the camera lingers on her body for about thirty seconds that was my first thought. Dillon and Bacon are pretty good in their respective roles, Dillon as the smarmy Sam Lombardo and Bacon as the violent cop Ray Duquette. It is also interesting to see Campbell completely play against her type. But just as I remembered, the film has way too many twists and turns at the end. I feel like it wanted to be Hitchcockian in form and content, but just wasn't up to those demanding standards, but then again, what film can? Still, a great popcorn film, if just for Richards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)